Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 105 posts

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#21

Post by Supermancho »

jasonladuke0311 wrote: post #7
metroholografix wrote: post #3

> Sources say Goyer was also adamant that “The Sandman” not be “dumbed-down” and that it be “kept weird,” and any attempts to make it “formulaic” were rejected by Goyer and Gaiman. That's funny since I found it formulaic to the extreme, which is a shame. Being a fan of the comics, I was saddened by the potential that was squandered in this adaptation. Regardless of what Gaiman says, I can't see this series as anythin…

24 hour diner followed a bunch of nobodies and a side character for 40 minutes. That is not in any formula that conventional shows would follow.

> 24 hour diner followed a bunch of nobodies and a side character for 40 minutes.

It's well very well-traveled ground. This formula isn't popular. The Walking Dead-themed shows are known for it.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#22

Post by tialaramex »

wyldfire wrote: post #5

I don't read a ton of fiction, but I absolutely love everything I've read by Gaiman. I haven't read "The Sandman" yet, but I'm pretty optimistic about the show based on everything else I've read.

The Sandman is a weird thing to have missed. I guess you got into him after he started writing novels?

Sandman is in my opinion Gaiman's best long form work, but for my money his best single issue is probably from his (likely now never to be finished although they do keep teasing, most recently for this October) Miracleman run.

"Winter's Tale" from the Golden Age of Miracleman is doing something comic books aren't allowed to do, even more so than when he wrote Sandman. Winter is far more powerful than her father, and so the story ought to not work because what are the stakes? Introducing some "big bad" that could hurt Winter ruins the flow of the rest of the comic, and yet without such a threat why should we care about her tale? Gaiman sidesteps that by telling it as a children's story, like Judth Kerr's "The Tiger Who Came To Tea". In this form the story within a story can break all the rules. Masterful. And then the outer envelope story continues the Golden Age theme of humans living in a utopia still being humans.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#23

Post by varjag »

metroholografix wrote: post #6
arthurcolle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was a pretty good adaptation! What didn't you like about it?

The comic was transformative and iconoclastic. It made you think but also forged new ground in graphic storytelling (and let's not forget that the artists that worked on it were at least as important if not more so than Gaiman). There is none of that in this adaptation. It plays it safe on every possible level. One can easily imagine the corporate bean counters slapping Gaiman on the back, a firm nod of approval.

Wonder if it has anything to do with reading the comic in your 20s and watching the adaptation in your 40s.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#24

Post by Supermancho »

cmm wrote: post #8
arthurcolle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was a pretty good adaptation! What didn't you like about it?

well, let's see: bog-standard cgi, overbearing music that sounds like music in any other big recent(ish) "fantasy" production, stilted dialogue laced with awkward exposition, nobody among the cast seems to know how to fucking act (except the guy playing John Dee, he's excellent though also exactly the same as everywhere else, so he just steals every scene he's in), that stupid raven, shall I go on. still watchable, w…

The raven feels like a studio note. Hey, let's get a grating voice^ to do narration and exposition cleanup, and it can completely counteract the dark moody theme for people who don't like that!

^ No offense to the great Patton Oswald, but the audio is boosted to make the choice seem even worse. He's supposed to be a voice for the Sandman, but instead he's a bullhorn.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#25

Post by polotics »

snoopy_telex wrote: post #2

I really hope that he can leverage any success in getting American Gods a final season. It deserved a ending

I came to Sandman expecting something approaching the early seasons of American Gods, was sorely disappointed. The storytelling is fine in Sandman, but the lack of graphic flamboyance really takes it somewhere else than where I hoped. Tale of the lost psychedelia I guess: what's on screen is readable TV, stable clear shots, not the focused freedom of the graphic novels.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#26

Post by yewenjie »

metroholografix wrote: post #3

> Sources say Goyer was also adamant that “The Sandman” not be “dumbed-down” and that it be “kept weird,” and any attempts to make it “formulaic” were rejected by Goyer and Gaiman. That's funny since I found it formulaic to the extreme, which is a shame. Being a fan of the comics, I was saddened by the potential that was squandered in this adaptation. Regardless of what Gaiman says, I can't see this series as anythin…

Totally agreed. They made it an emotional drama while the story is far more than mere emotions. With forced cliffhangers and petty emotional dialogue, it just feels so fast - whereas the original often gives you space and time to ponder upon the deep ideas it plays with.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#27

Post by powerhour »

simonh wrote: post #18
htk wrote: post #13

Several complaints online about "forced diversity" on the casting, many relating it to Netflix's influences.

Have any of these people actually read the graphic novels? They’re chock full of trans, non-binary, race swapping characters. Playing with the fluidity of identity is a persistent theme.

It doesn't matter. If anyone outside the "norm" is included, a group of folks online will be angry about it. They're a minority and can safely be ignored (and probably about other topics as well).

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#28

Post by echelon »

no_wizard wrote: post #14
snoopy_telex wrote: post #2

I really hope that he can leverage any success in getting American Gods a final season. It deserved a ending

I always felt it needed a different network that would be more willing to take more risks, like HBO

HBO, now under control of cost-cutting Discovery+ executives, may not be taking risks for much longer.

Twitter is abuzz with insiders stating that the CEO doesn't like the cost or margins of "appointment viewing" and would prefer Discovery+'s more inexpensive, reality-based "comfort viewing".

It sounds like HBO is going to start sucking.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#29

Post by revscat »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #9
metroholografix wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comic was transformative and iconoclastic. It made you think but also forged new ground in graphic storytelling (and let's not forget that the artists that worked on it were at least as important if not more so than Gaiman). There is none of that in this adaptation. It plays it safe on every possible level. One can easily imagine the corporate bean counters slapping Gaiman on the back, a firm nod of approval.

Maybe you're right, but I have no way to tell from your comments, because both of them are very generic. A lot of handwaving dismissal, but not actually describing any of the aggrieved wrongness. Lobbing "formulaic" but not giving a formula, "safe" but not explaining the safety. What you've done is, ironically, formulaic and safe. Statements that fit well into the typical potshot pattern of people on the internet wan…

For many years now I have had a rule to downvote on sight any post that complains about something being “overrated”. 99% of the time it’s a cheap criticism, insubstantial and impossible to rebut.

“Formulaic” feel like it lives in a similar bucket. They’re kissing cousins, at least.

Post reply on HN